This is topic Automation Lens Change in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005273

---

Posted by Jeff Klump (Member # 1870) on 08-31-2003, 07:18 PM:
 
At my theatre we have Component Engineering TA-10 automations which allow for lens changes. Up to this point (5 1/2 years) our theatre has never used the lens cue in a public showing. I was happy to be the first person to implement it. Although it wasn't for a loving cause. I had to cue the change because we were out of scope advertisements. What is the theatre world coming to when we have to incorporate lens changes just to accommodate ads?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-31-2003, 07:26 PM:
 
In today's times of supergenuis top masking auditorium designs, switching from flat to scope is one heck of a disappointment. I would flat out refuse to show the ads in a common width setup if they couldn't provide me with scope copies.

I was always a fan of side masking auditoriums, running trailers in flat then switching to scope for the feature. Very classy. Ashamed hardly anyone builds like that anymore.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-31-2003, 07:38 PM:
 
Mr Klump, you would be surprised to know how much lens changing is going on in some parts of the rest of the world. For instance, in Germany we usually have 20-40 minutes of rolling commercials before the feature. These and most of the trailers are in flat. It would be very impractical and also too cost-prohibitive to have them in scope as well. Often, the company logo and some trailers are shown right before the feature, so we do lens changes often in full flight.
Fortunately, most of the theatres have side masking, so the screen opens for the scope feature which in itself is a nice effect.
 

---

Posted by Jeff Klump (Member # 1870) on 08-31-2003, 08:01 PM:
 
I was unaware of all the lens changes out there. I guess I am thankful to working on a turret system. Doing them manually like I used to on some old Century Simplex's would be painstaking. I will agree that is it neat to watch when the side masking opens up automatically. I went into one showing to here the audience reaction and I heard some one say, "OOOOO, widescreen".
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-31-2003, 08:44 PM:
 
I would not go through the trouble for the ads. However, I have on a few occasions run out of company institutional trailers and had to make a lens change for it.

I just built up a flat trailer pack and then before the movie I add about 10 feet of black leader, so the lens and masking change is not as noticable, and then the movie runs in scope.

As far as the dumb preshow ads, I like running out of those so that I wont have to put them on.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-31-2003, 08:52 PM:
 
Quite often we don't have all the trailers we need in the proper format, so I'll do a lens change on the fly if necessary, using the same "black leader" trick mentioned above. We have stage lights, so I fade those back up for the duration of the lens change.

A turret is forever on my "wish list" but I just can't justify the horrendous cost for such a simple device. Why are they so expensive, anyway??
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-31-2003, 09:11 PM:
 
there is a lot of presision machining involved plus some major mods to the projector
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-31-2003, 11:11 PM:
 
changing lenses on the fly would be a neat trick but there's no way we could do it, especially in the main house. no turret, side and top masking without stops (has to be set with light running through projector and some trial and error), lens must be recentered side to side and projector tilt adjusted, and framing must be adjusted due to uncoordinated aperture plates. there's also a large focus shift which would i suppose be pretty easy to correct, but i have rough marks on the focus knob that work pretty well. it would be interesting to try it after hours and see just how time-consuming/ugly it is.

carl
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-01-2003, 08:14 AM:
 
I know of a couple of platter houses that can do automated lens/masking changes, although I doubt that the functionality has been used more than a couple of times. In platter houses, I think I've only seen it done once, anywhere, as a customer. Personally, I've only done it in changeover houses.

Agreed with Brad's comments that switching from flat to scope at the start of the feature looks impressive with side masking and lame with top masking. The one exception would be at the Avon, where we use top masking for scope, but show flat trailers using the 1.33 lenses (which are longer than the 1.85 lenses) and a special plate. This results in a very small 1.85 image (same height as the scope image), which then becomes wider after the changeover to scope. It's pretty clever, actually, and looks fine.

Personally, I would never go to this amount of trouble for ads. If the advertising company can't be bothered to send the correct number in the correct format, then I see no reason why an exhibitor should go to any amount of extra effort to show the ads. Any excuse to not show ads is fine by me!
 

---

Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 09-01-2003, 08:20 AM:
 
In Australia lens changes are the most comon thing there is! Ever cinema runs lens changes for the trailers, I can't remeber seeing a movie that did not have a lens change! In most multiplexs in Australias its automated. I also do the lens change on the fly trick.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-01-2003, 09:16 AM:
 
Which direction does your turrets rotate in Australia?

Steve
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-01-2003, 10:58 AM:
 
When I started in this business, lens changes were a fact of life. I can remember starting the show with a 45-second reel of a merchant ad and a kiddie show announcement trailer, changing over to the scope feature. Granted, these were the days of "continuous picture service" (i.e., two projectors), but I would think with automatic lens turrets it wouldn't even be a concern.

Now, as a part-time trailer producer, I get the occasional request for scope trailers because the operator is either too lazy to cue a lens change, the theatre doesn't employ enough operators to properly cover the number of screens, or the theatre doesn't employ an operator at all. The point Brad made about the theatres being improperly designed as an excuse for never changing lenses, is a new one.

That's all well and good, but speaking from the standpoint of a producer in a specialty trailer environment, making a scope version involves shooting another negative and keeping a double-inventory. Guess at whose expense?

This is what I'm driving at: the circuits have eliminated the craft of projection. They refuse to pay what the job's worth, understaff their booths, and cut corners on design; and they expect someone else to pay for it!

I think the following speaks volumes about the current state of the business, and society. I have seen our flat trailers run in scope... ON TWO PROJECTOR SETUPS! That's just plain laziness.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-01-2003, 12:03 PM:
 
I can understand that common-width happened out of pure necessity in conversions -- those single screens years ago that were tortured into multiplexes and needed to have common width setups because there was just no other way to physically do it, other than tearing down the theatre (now THERE'S a thought). But do you mean to tell me that today there are NEW builds that actually design auditoria with common-width setups ON PURPOSE? It's absurd and the architect should be banned from ever designing a theatre again. Are there really such abortions out there in any number?

At a time when it has become so glaringly apparant that exhibition is in direct competition with home theatre and needs to be bigger and BETTER, doing common-width is like a square TV screen doing letterbox for scope! HELLO....the hot thing now in home theatre is WIDE display screens. Even non-techies know what 16:9 is where it's at. Does the exhibitor think the patron who's got a 16:9 won't realize that this theatre where he's paid $10 can't even do wide screen, but is doing letterbox scope? Even in his home theatre, the flat picture is square and the scope picture is WIDER.

And yes, change-over houses do have that advantage -- we can easily do format changes. But automation can do it too -- it's jsut a matter of making it a priority. Our cartoon/attraction reel is ALWAYS 1.37, so that even if our flat feature is only 1.66, the mask and curtains STILL open wider than the trailers and of course the width change from 1.37 to scope is, well, it's practically orgasmic, and it's why scope was invented, damn it. To not comprehend how letterboxing it castrates the scope presentation....well, it's just one of the many major things that's wrong with exhibition. Certain things shouldn't be compromised no matter what the reason. Castrated Scope is one of them. If an exhibitor is doing that, then he should just get out of the business altogether and run a hot dog stand or something, although all bets are on that he will run that half-ass as well.

Frank

PS -- Steve, above the equator, turrets turn clockwise....below the equator they turn counterclock wise.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-01-2003, 12:37 PM:
 

quote:

---

exhibition is in direct competition with home theatre and needs to be bigger and BETTER, doing common-width is like a square TV screen doing letterbox for scope!

---

quote:

---

"You can't very well advertsise WALL TO WALL screens if you've got side masking. Customers are idiots and they'll call you on it."

---

quote:

---

" But do you mean to tell me that today there are NEW builds that actually design auditoria with common-width setups ON PURPOSE? It's absurd and the architect should be banned from ever designing a theatre again. Are there really such abortions out there in any number? "

---

YES Frank! Virtually every stadium seating megaplex is designed in this stupid fashion. What great architectural superhumangenuis we have at work here. Let's take the one format that is hurting for light and resolution and blow it up almost twice as big as the more efficient format. Architects who do this are clearly heading down to a local stadium theater and just assuming that this is the best and proper way to design their next project.

(Edit: well now I feel my comment isn't really needed since apparently Steve's post above mine was on this second page that I did not notice was here. Oh well, my thoughts still stand.)

The first time I encountered a common width screen was at Cinemark Vista Ridge 12. This was my first day there and in screen #3 I was showing the most beaten to shit print of Dances With Wolves in existance, complete with easily 100 splices. When the flat trailers ended, the turret switched and the masking dropped. For the next hour the managers (who were clueless) were in an uproar all because some patron in the auditorium was furious because "the curtains fell" and she "couldn't see the top of Kevin Costner's head". Ugh!

Plus add in the fact that few auto-turrets truly work well and it's no wonder why people hate to do them in multiplexes.
 

---

Posted by Dan Harris (Member # 1759) on 09-01-2003, 03:59 PM:
 
Thankfully our company still builds new multiplexes with variable side masking and screen tabs, so that full advantage can be taken of 'scope. We also tend to opt for a few bigger auditoria at one location rather than more small auditoria.

All adverts and trailers over here are flat anyway, so theres always a 20-minute pre-feature presentation. Our cinemas that have full automation (TLS Cinemation 2004/5 or Cinemec. Vector 1000 in new builds) change lenses and masking while running through spacing, and our theatres with manual lens changes have a few minutes interval with the tabs closed after the trailer reel. Then theres nothing better than having screen tabs open on a scope screen for the Dolby City title before the feature!

I was watching Heartbreakers in a theatre with a common-width screen a few years ago - on the change to 'scope someone in the audience proceeded to shout "Booooo!" and the people sitting at the front had to move a few rows back.

I've also been to cinemas where the masking has made the most horrendous noise and stuck half way, and where the lens has jammed half way. I firmly belive that the projectionist should be at the machine when they know an automated lens change is due. Sadly, this is not always the case.
 

---

Posted by Michael Trotochaud (Member # 1513) on 09-01-2003, 07:22 PM:
 
So here is a question that comes from wanting to have the affect of changing ratios without actually doing it. If I were to get a scope trailer for a film that is flat, will the trailer be "door stopped" or will it actually fill the entire width? If it is door stopped then when the feature starts, the screen should appear to have widened.

So I guess the question is, are scope trailers for flat films all door stopped or do they fill the screen? If they are available in both formats, are they differentiated on the label or is it a crap shoot?

Mike
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-01-2003, 08:20 PM:
 
Most of the time, scope trailers of flat films will have black bars on the sides, with the picture in a roughly 1.85 or 2:1 ratio. Some will fill the width of the screen (essentially using vertical pan-and-scan). And, no, there's no way to tell from the label.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-02-2003, 12:28 AM:
 
The reversal of front end design path is really ironic. Adjustable top masking was a neccessitated compromise in the old proscenium houses to show scope when it was new, while the new builds of theaters had wide screens with side masking to go out for scope. Now the new houses are designed with adjustable top masking, & it's the older theaters that have side masking!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-02-2003, 11:14 AM:
 
Please care about composition:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml

Common width for all formats is a BAD trend.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-03-2003, 12:34 PM:
 

quote:

---

You can't very well advertsise WALL TO WALL screens if you've got side masking. Customers are idiots and they'll call you on it.

---

Once again that's exhibition looking for a competitive edge without understanding the technology. Just like they did creating cropped wide screen. It was a STUPID idea but it forced the studios to go along (or risk having the composition of 1.37 material ruined in the theatre). Here again exhibition is doing something out of left field without, it would seem, any input from technicians or the studios.

They think this "wall to wall" marketing gimmick is going to impress people? My guess is NOT, especially as movie-goers get more savvy about aspect ratios given what they have to deal with in their home theatres. Besides, any good marketing dept. can highlight common-height screens with concept marketing phrases, like, "Floor to ceiling" instead of "wall to wall." Put in a curved screen and your've got a Floor-to-Ceiling, Panavista, Wrap-around Screen. When we run regular, standard 1.85 flat, we are showing a film in Wide Screen Dimension -- it's in every ad and the logo we created for it is stuck on every 1 sheet. Come on, you learn this stuff in Marketing 101. Selling common-height is a piece of cake.

Frank
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 09-04-2003, 10:02 AM:
 
Is it that much more difficult to build a screen with side masking rather than top?? I mean if this is such a bad thing then why are so many people using top masking?

I never really thought about it before, but it always seemed strange to me that the scope would be smaller than flat.

Does anyone really care about wall to wall screens??

I could really care less about the size of a screen. I care about where the screen is, I hate auditoriums with stadium seating and really high screens where you have to sit on the back row to see the screen comfortably.

If the house has regular floor seating then the screen needs to be higher up so you can actually see it all instead of people's heads.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-04-2003, 10:29 AM:
 
Some claim that filling the full width of the screen makes more sense in a stadium theatre, where you often have a fairly high front wall, so why not fill more of it with a 1.85:1 image?

But the original idea of "Scope" and other widescreen processes was to give movies more impact and fill the field of view, so it really doesn't make any sense for 2.39:1 "Scope" films to be shown with a smaller image than 1.85:1 "flat". And as Steve Guttag mentions, because the 1.85:1 "flat" format is so inefficient in using light, it is difficult to match light levels between the two formats if you try to project a much bigger image for flat than scope.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-04-2003, 01:12 PM:
 
The only stadium-seating theatre I've even been to (aside from Imax) is Cinemark's theatre here in Springfield, which opened in 1999. I have to say I really like the design. The relationships between screen size, including height, and the seating arrangement, seems pretty close to ideal. Well, at least "very good". Yes, most of their screens are common-width, though 4 of the 17 have both movable top and side masking. I fully understand why they're doing the common-width thing. Wish it were otherwise, but hey, I'm just glad to have aspect ratios that are more-or-less correct.
 

---